Memorandum

City of Lawrence

Planning & Development Services

 

 

TO:

David L. Corliss, City Manager

 

FROM:

Brian Jimenez, Code Enforcement Manager

 

CC:

Scott McCullough, Director

 

Date:

For November 5, 2013 City Commission Study Session

 

RE:

Rental Expansion

 

 

At the September 10, 2013 City Commission meeting, the Commission reviewed Ordinance No. 8840 and draft Administrative Regulations intended to apply certain elements of the ordinance.  The Commission did not act on the ordinance, choosing instead to provide individual comments on the documents subsequent to the meeting.   This memo responds to comments and issues identified during the September 10th meeting and submitted directly by individual Commissioners subsequent to the meeting.  Staff’s responses to each comment/issue below follow in red.

 

General comments made at or after the September 10, 2013 City Commission meeting:

 

  1. Property Maintenance Code(s) – Comments were made to delete certain code violations from the inspection process to make the program based solely on life-safety elements of the code. 

 

Until these recent comments, the basic structure of the program was to enforce the entire set of the city’s adopted codes related to maintaining property in a way that is consistent throughout the city. 

 

The Property Maintenance Code is the primary code applied to every housing unit in the city and sets forth minimum living standards people should be afforded.  This code is applied via inspections in two ways – on a complaint basis and via the existing rental licensing and inspection program.  Staff recognizes that deleting certain codes from the inspection program, other than the Property Maintenance Code, is plausible (such as the noise ordinance which is more acute in its use).  However, picking only certain elements of the Property Maintenance Code to apply to the program would be a challenge since it would essentially create two codes by which to inspect properties – one for complaints and one for rental properties during the normal inspection – unless the code is revised for city-wide application. 

 

The city’s property codes are all based on the premise of protecting the public’s health, safety and welfare.  The codes themselves do not distinguish between major and minor or life-safety and non-life-safety, as they all further the goal of protecting the health, safety and welfare of the public.  The original intent of creating major and minor violation types was to provide a mechanism for landlords to achieve the incentive part of the proposed program and not be burdened by standards reasonably viewed as more nuisance than high level safety issues.    In order to move the discussion forward, staff requests that the issue of the degree by which the Property Maintenance Code is applied be clarified.  The following question may help prompt the discussion:

 

    1. Does the Commission desire to maintain the full range of property codes (life-safety, nuisance, blight) for complaint-driven inspections and focus only on a subset of codes for the rental inspection program that focuses on life-safety issues on the interior of the property?  Working from the basis of a subset of codes has pros and cons.  It produces a program with less follow up from a staff and owner perspective, but it may cause confusion and frustration on the part of the owner if certain violations are noted during a rental inspection and others are found during a complaint-based inspection. It also maintains that the responsibility for neighborhood blighting factors and zoning/land use issues be borne by a complainant and not that of the rental program while an inspector is at the property as part of a consistent inspection routine. 

 

  1. Who is responsible for addressing violations?  Like all property code standards, the property owner is responsible for addressing violations of the adopted codes.  There may be arrangements between landlord and tenant that transfer the responsibility of maintenance, but the responsibility for meeting code from the city’s perspective rests squarely on the property owner. The program has been drafted in a way that doesn’t hold potential tenant-based violations against a landlord in terms of meeting the criteria to achieve the incentive, but the violation is ultimately the responsibility of the property owner.

 

  1. What does an inspection program mean for structures that may not comply with the Property Maintenance Code?  One outcome of this effort will be that the city will be applying the city’s adopted property codes on a regular basis to all rental units and not just as complaints are received.  Staff anticipates that many structures will need to be modified or repaired as an outcome of such inspection.  The degree of this from a cost perspective is not known but could range from less costly repairs or modifications (smoke detection, GFCI, etc.) to more substantial modifications (egress windows and routes from basements and attics, HVAC repair, and occupancy violations where rental income may be lost).  Inspections may yield zoning use issues as well.  In such cases the owner will often have avenues to pursue compliance, either through site planning or variances. There will be a cost to the owner in these instances to bring the property to the minimum standards.

 

  1. Revise sampling to include multiple units owned by a single entity regardless of location of the units. The ordinance can be revised to reflect this direction.  Owners of multiple units on separate properties, be they Detached Dwellings, Duplexes, or Multi-Dwelling units, will receive inspections based on a 10% sampling of the units.  One issue this raises is that staff has constructed the fees under the assumption that only larger apartment complexes on one property would be subject to the sampling method for inspections.  Employing this new method will further reduce the number of inspections made and will thus lower the income of the program, though we do not know by how much at this time.

 

5.    Clarify that owner-occupied units are exempt from the program.  The ordinance has been revised to clarify this issue.  Children are not counted in the equation when identifying the number of un-related persons living together; therefore, a non-traditional couple with children would be allowed to live together as one family unit.  The ordinance reflects the current program and results in the following circumstances:

a.    Unit is occupied solely by owner – exempt

b.    Unit is occupied by owner and his/her immediate family – exempt

c.    Unit is occupied by owner’s immediate family – exempt

d.    Unit is occupied by owner and unrelated people up to the occupancy limit – exempt

e.    Unit is occupied by owner and unrelated people exceeding the occupancy limit – exempt but an occupancy violation

f.     Unit is occupied by owner’s immediate family and unrelated people – not exempt

g.    Unit is occupied by people other than the owner or the owner’s immediate family – not exempt

 

6.    Should the program address mainly life-safety issues or should it also address neighborhood blight issues. Until recently, a central theme of expanding the program was to address life-safety issues, as well as demolition by neglect and blighting issues to sustain the quality of neighborhoods.  The current program applies the following codes to the inspection program:

 

(a) Noise Ordinance (Sections 14-413-416);

(b) Anti-litter Ordinance (Chapter 14, Article 1);

(c) Disorderly House Nuisance Ordinance (Chapter 14, Article 11);

(d) Property Maintenance Code (Chapter 5, Article 10); or

(e) The Land Development Code (Chapter 20);

 

The proposed ordinance reviewed September 10, 2013 included the list of codes above, but also specifically listed the building and fire codes as follows:

 

(i)   Building Code (Chapter 5, Article 2)

(ii)  Residential Code (Chapter 5, Article 3)

(iii)  Electrical Code (Chapter 5, Article 4)

(iv) Plumbing Code (Chapter 5, Article 5)

(v)  Mechanical Code (Chapter 5, Article 6)

(vi) Existing Building Code (Chapter 5, Article 9)

(vii) Fire Code (Chapter 8, Article 2)

 

Staff has reviewed the proposed list and finds that calling out the building and fire codes is redundant.  The Property Maintenance Code covers the building and fire code elements by which rental units are required to be maintained, including the exterior condition of structures which directly addresses aesthetic blight in neighborhoods.  Additionally, staff finds that the Noise and Anti-litter codes do not serve the program with enough value to be included in the list of codes since these generally are used for specific times when a tenant is acting in a way where enforcement of these codes is necessary with the tenants directly.  Staff recommends adopting the following list of codes to maintain the values of reviewing life-safety and neighborhood blight issues:

 

(i)  Disorderly House Nuisance Ordinance (Chapter 14, Article 11)

 

(ii) Property Maintenance Code (Chapter 9, Article 6)

 

(iii) The Land Development Code (Chapter 20)

 

This will lead to revisions on the list of major and minor violations in the Administrative Regulations.

 

If the Commission chooses not to apply certain codes that address exterior conditions, then the Property Maintenance Code will need to be amended to delete certain provisions or to make them apply only when complaints are received and not when inspected as part of the rental licensing program.

 

7.    What level of fire suppression will be required for uses that include more than two units or that are congregate living uses?  Generally speaking, the minimum standards for new construction and/or major renovation and/or changes of use of structures that are no greater than three stories containing three or more units or congregate living facilities require the following:

 

a)    A sprinkler system with a dedicated alarm system for notification of activation.

b)   Interconnected smoke alarms.

c)    One exit from each story (does not need to be exterior due to requirement for sprinkler system).

 

As the Property Maintenance Code and International Fire Code are currently adopted, any existing structure should comply with the codes adopted at the time of construction.  Thus any structure found during inspection to be deficient of fire protection standards, which may include sprinklers, and built at a time when such standards were required would be made to be brought up to standard at a potentially significant cost to the owner. 

 

However, staff recognizes that there is potential for many structures, primarily in the Oread Neighborhood, to exist in a condition devoid of any permit record in the city.  Verifying construction dates of all questionable units is simply too resource intense for the staffing being provided to the program expansion.  Because of this, and to ensure minimal life-safety standards are maintained, staff offers the following proposal in lieu of researching all questionable units where fire suppression standards are found to be deficient:

 

Amend the Property Maintenance Code to require the following standards for all structures where three or more rental units exist or for congregate living uses and where the number of stories is limited to no more than three above grade/basement:

 

a)    Either provide a sprinkler system with a dedicated alarm system or provide egress to the ground from the third story (ladder or stairs) through a properly sized egress window.

b)   Provide interconnected smoke alarms in all common areas of the structure, on each floor of the units, and within each sleeping room.

c)    Provide an unexpired, operational fire extinguisher in the kitchen of each unit.

 

Responses to Mayor Dever’s specific comments:

 

1)    All Miscellaneous Violations are not to be used against landlord for re-inspection incentive and are not considered life safety related issues. These items could be removed from the inspection entirely, or included as a subset of inspection elements for the benefit of the landlord and tenant.

 

See the reallocation of the inspection elements in the lists below.

 

Life Safety Oriented Minor violations

 

·     BBQ grill on deck

·     Upholstered furniture on a deck or unenclosed porch

·     Dirty furnace and/or filter

·     Electrical panel has open port or missing cover

·     Extension cords used for permanent power source

·     Fungus that is most likely mold that is located on walls, ceilings, or floors (small area)

·     GFCI receptacles need replaced or installed in wet areas, bathrooms and/or kitchens

·     Handrail for stairs (interior and exterior) needs to be installed or repaired

·     Receptacles that are improperly wired

·     Receptacles and/or light switches with missing or broken covers

·     Temperature and pressure relief valve drain pipe on water heater missing or inadequate

·     Clothes washer receptacle not grounded or not GFCI protected

·     Smoke detector(s) inoperable

·     Windows that are not fixed, but do not open

 

Miscellaneous Minor Violations

·     Bathroom ventilation fan is inoperable

·     Clogged drains

·     Cracked window

·     Doors (interior) that do not fit in jamb, or are damaged

·     Exterior door that does not provide weather tight fit

·     Grass or weeds in violation of the city’s weed ordinance

·     Inadequate exterior storm drainage

·     Plumbing fixture leaks

·     Deadbolt lock(s) need to be installed on exterior doors that otherwise have a    non-deadbolt lock

·     Vehicle that is not properly tagged or inoperable

·     Missing or damaged window screens when required by the code

·     Wood rot of exterior wood on siding, trim, window sills or other structural exterior elements (small or single area)

·     Yard has trash, debris or exterior storage

 

Life Safety Oriented Major violations

·             Backed up sanitary sewer line

·             Combustion “makeup” air requirement not met for gas furnace and/or water heater

·             Missing or inoperable lock on exterior doors

·             Dryer not vented to exterior or improperly vented

·             Egress requirement not met for bedrooms

·             Electrical wiring that is exposed, frayed or faulty as defined by code

·             Fire escape from 3rd story or higher not in place when required by code

·             Fungus that is most likely mold that is located on walls, ceilings, or floors (large or multiple areas)

·             Furnace or water heater flue that is loose or disconnected

·             Gas fired furnace and/or water heater not properly vented

·             Smoke detectors not present

·             Structural deficiencies that affect the structural integrity of ceiling, walls, flooring, etc.

·             Water heating facilities inoperable or inadequate

·             Windows within 6 ft. of grade with missing or inoperable locks

 

Miscellaneous Major Violations

·             Occupancy violation

·             Land use violation of the Land Development Code (Chapter 20 of City Code)

·             Ceiling height requirement not met in habitable rooms as defined by code

·             Heating facilities not provided in a habitable space or current heating facilities are inoperable, operating in an unsafe condition, or incapable of maintaining 68 degrees in habitable rooms

·             Bedroom and living room size requirements not met

·             Leaking roof

·             Window broken or missing

·             Wood rot of exterior wood on siding, trim, window sills or other structural exterior elements (large or multiple areas)

 

POTENTIAL TENANT BASED LIFE SAFETY VIOLATIONS

·             Upholstered furniture on a deck or unenclosed porch

·             Smoke detectors inoperable due to missing batteries

·             BBQ grill on deck

·             Extension cords used for permanent power source

 

POTENTIAL TENANT BASED MISCELLANEOUS VIOLATIONS

·             Grass or weeds in violation of the city’s weed ordinance

·             Vehicle that is not properly tagged or that is inoperable

·             Missing or damaged window screens when required by the code

·             Yard has trash, debris or exterior storage

·             Occupancy violation

·             Backed up sanitary sewer line

·             Broken, cracked or missing window

·             Ceiling/wall hole(s)

 

While all of the noted issues are considered violations of the adopted codes, the program could be structured such that minor violations, regardless of fault or number, would not be held against a landlord for the purpose of achieving the incentive to forego inspections for 3 years.  The lists above seek to modify the proposed list of major and minor violations, which can be accomplished with the understanding that the property owner is still responsible for correcting all of the violations.  Because the Commission appears to differ on where a violation may fall in the lists of major and minor, staff will need direction on the final list.

 

2)    The inspection program should not begin until after 9/1/2014 due to existing lease language and potential conflicts created by inconsistent language.  This is a feasible revision to the program in order to provide landlords one lease cycle to prepare new leases if they find it necessary; however, staff’s experience is that many landlords desire inspections between rental periods and so the program should be structured to meet this desire.

3)    Inspections should not occur in July or August due to the cyclical nature of the move in and out cycle of the local rental units. A redistribution of the letters will be required.  While the ordinance can be drafted in a way to not require inspections during this time, staff often receives requests to inspect during these months and staff believes it is important to maintain flexibility in the program.

4)    Registration can begin sooner than inspections if needed.  If approved in 2013, the city will begin to require licensing beginning January 2014.

5)    Number of units owned by same person, but different addresses should be consolidated, and the number of units to be inspected should be reduced to similar levels of apartment complexes or similar units per our discussion at CC meeting.  This change is feasible.

6)    How will we set penalties for tenant related or initiated damages or violations found during any inspection? Those values need to delineated and disseminated.  It is staff’s position that property owners are responsible for correcting violations.  Tenants will not be cited for property code violations even if evidence suggests that they caused the disrepair.

7)    Issue of contact with tenant must be resolved.  Staff is challenged, per state law, to have contact information for tenants.  The responsibility for complying with the licensing and inspection program rests with the property owner who rents the unit as a business venture.  In this regard, the business owner has the responsibility to coordinate the inspection from their end since they are ultimately responsible for compliance and have better access to their tenants.  This process works well in the current program.

8)    Issue with warrant issuance needs to be resolved better.  Staff is not sure what the issue is with the city’s warrant process.  The state statutes provide a very specific avenue to obtaining entry into a structure when justified for a specific purpose.  This process is used consistently by the city on complaint based inspections.

9)    Can we have misc. items be completely removed from the inspection to streamline? Or at least some of them? While using a subset of property maintenance codes to limit the scope of inspecting rental properties is an available option, creating two codes, one for complaint based inspections and one for rental inspections, creates new challenges for staff, owners and tenants as discussed earlier in this memo.

 

Responses to Vice Mayor Amyx’s specific comments:

 

1.   Whereas  (the goal to enforce minimum housing standards) It is the goal to perform regular inspections of rental housing city-wide on a basis that is more consistent than the complaint-based system the city currently operates under.

2.   Whereas (affordable housing) This program promotes affordable housing that meets minimum housing standards so that those most vulnerable are afforded safe living conditions.

3.   6-1301 - This language is necessary to describe the activity of the rental industry that is being regulated.

4.   6-1307(b) -  The code official will have access to the license.  Staff believes the licensee should maintain possession for the benefit of the tenant.  This section was modified from requiring that the license be displayed in the unit itself.

5.   6-1308 - The ordinance can be modified to not require inspections during this time; however, it will remain an option since some landlords prefer conducting the inspection at the time the unit is vacant.

6.   6-1310 -  Consent from the tenants or securing a warrant is necessary to comply with federal law, but the responsibility for complying with the licensing and inspection program rests with the property owner who rents the unit as a business venture. In this regard, the business owner has the responsibility to coordinate the inspection from their end since they are ultimately responsible for compliance.

7.   6-1313 – The right of entry section of the ordinance is the same as it is for any code violation the city suspects exists on a property and is legally sound according to the City Attorney’s Office.  Search Warrants are delivered to those on site and staff is always accompanied by the Police.

8.   6-1314 – All violations are the responsibility of the owner even if they do not count toward achieving the incentive schedule.

9.   6-1314(c) -  We have decided to remove the anti-litter ordinance.

10.                6-1314 (c) – In staff’s opinion, the disorderly house nuisance ordinance is vital in addressing rental units that can have extreme detrimental impacts to a neighborhood and we recommend it remain in the ordinance to act as further incentive to gain landlord’s participation in such matters.

11.                6-1314 (c) – The Land Development Code is recommended to remain as there could be a violation of land use, i.e. the use should not exist at all.

12.                6-1316 (d) – This section sets forth that the licensee has 14 days to appeal a violation.  In most cases, the landlord will be given 30 days to remediate the conditions causing the violation.

13.                6-1320 (e) – Per this code section, the tenant can be held responsible without penalty to the owner.  A complaint could be filed, however; the goal is for compliance and usually the owner is given a minimum of 30 days to become complaint with the occupancy regulations.  Staff does and will investigate occupancy complaints thoroughly and will determine if boyfriend/girlfriend are residing or sleeping at the dwelling unit a majority of their time.

14.                6-1321 – To become compliant, the occupancy must be reduced by the owner or tenants to the legal limit as defined by the appropriate zoning district and inspection staff would monitor compliance.

15.                6-1322 – Depending on the severity of the violation, a dwelling unit can be deemed unfit for human occupancy and it is possible tenants could be ordered to “move out” immediately.  This ordinance does not add any new provisions regarding unsafe structures as the property maintenance code regulates those situations.

 

Section 6-1322 of the ordinance states that the city may terminate utility service when “continued occupancy or habitation of Residential Rental Property that is in violation of the provisions of this Article shall constitute a hazard to the public health, safety, and welfare and that the City’s provision of water, sanitary sewer, and sanitation services is reasonably related to the ability to occupy or inhabit said Residential Rental Property.”  This is an appropriate police power to protect the public’s health, safety, and welfare when conditions are extremely poor.

16.                6-1325(i) – The Fire Medical Department inspects all Greek occupancies twice annually for compliance with fire and life safety code.

Responses to Commissioner Schumm’s specific comments:

 

First of all I am very interested in keeping this ordinance involved in two areas, 1.

Life safety and 2. Environmental maintenance. I believe that landlords, as business owners, have an obligation to the neighborhood that they are located in, to keep their property in a condition that does not detract from the neighborhood. By only focusing on life safety issues this ordinance will not allow for the city to require that exterior portions of rental units be inspected on a regular basis and therefore be brought up to code more quickly.

         Under minor violations I would strike - "Vehicle that is not properly tagged", but would leave in "inoperable ". Also I would like to have a discussion about allowing gas BBQ grills.  Under major violations I would like to have a discussion about allowing for grandfather status ceiling heights, bed room and living room requirements as long as these units were created legally.   Under tenant violations I would drop "Not properly tagged vehicles: but leave in "inoperable" vehicles. As for all the rest, I would leave it all such that we end up with a strong ordinance.

 

Commissioner Schumm’s comments seem to relate, in part, to whether certain violations should count against the landlord.  While compliance with all codes is the responsibility of the property owner, the proposed ordinance seeks to create minor violations that would not count toward the owner in reaching the incentives of the ordinance.  While the incentive is proposed to be no more than 5 minor violations, this number could be amended or deleted altogether so that only major violations affect eligibility for the incentive.

 

The comments related to discussing specific code standards - ceiling heights, bed room and living room requirements - should be made in the context of applying the codes city-wide and not just for rental units, in staff’s opinion.  Staff’s observation is that livable spaces not meeting these standards generally were not permitted and did not meet the requirement when created.  These are minimal standards that ensure the most basic of living conditions.

 

Responses to Commissioner Farmer’s comments:

 

How do we ensure that people who own less properties than those affected by the sliding scale are treated equitably in relationship to the fees? How does the 10% affect them?

 

The Commission asked us to revise sampling to include multiple units owned by a single entity regardless of location of the units. The ordinance can be revised to reflect this direction.  Owners of multiple units on separate properties, be they Detached Dwellings, Duplexes, or Multi-Dwelling units, will receive inspections based on a 10% sampling of all the units owned by a single entity.

 

How imperative is the rental registration fee to the program being self-sustaining?

 

The current proposal and the estimated costs versus revenue generated identifies annual licensing fees and inspection fees as necessary to create what we believe to be a program where the fees cover the services delivered.  If registration fees were reduced, the inspection fees would need to be increased.  There are many assumed variables, but staff believes the numbers provided are a good starting point that allows for the expansion to occur with appropriate staffing to be hired.

 

How is the enforcement of code-related issues not going to punish the landlord when it is tenant responsibilities? Who makes those decisions?

 

In any code enforcement case, whether the violation is identified via a complaint or regular inspection, the responsibility for correcting violations falls on the property owner of record.  For example, the owner and tenant may have an agreement where the tenant mows the yard.  If a complaint is received, staff cites the property owner.  It then becomes a landlord-tenant issue regarding who would pay the costs if we ended up assigning our mowing contractor to mow the property.   Another example is an inoperable vehicle or exterior storage.  Both of these are tenant caused; however, the property owner is responsible for all elements of property code compliance.  

 

The current process of holding the property owner responsible for property code violations is a basic tenet of code construction and has been in place for many years and has not been dependent on how the violation was discovered – complaint or routine inspection.  It is staff’s belief that the property owner has complete control and responsibility to maintain the property.  The Kansas Landlord Tenant Act provides an outlet for property owners to enforce provisions of their lease agreement if a property owner is cited for a violation that is tenant caused.

 

How about mother in laws quarters? How are those inspected? What is the process for properties zoned that way?

 

Mother-in-law quarters are identified within the Development Code as accessory dwelling units.  Accessory dwelling units are only allowed within certain single dwelling zoned districts.  Under the current proposal, these units will be required to be licensed and inspected as any other rental unit unless these units are owner or family occupied.

 

What is the logic for why people need to register every year? Is there a way to coordinate with who owns the property with the register of deeds?

 

Annual licensing is a mechanism to track ownership information, Section 8 housing status, as well as link the license to enforcement action if necessary.

 

Can we ensure people with alternative lifestyles are not discriminated against?

 

The program in no way discriminates against people.  Please see general question no. 5 for a discussion on occupancy scenarios.

 

During the CC meeting on 9/10/13, a citizen said that this does not introduce one new code. What is the response to that?

 

Yes, this is correct.  There are no new city codes related to property maintenance being introduced.  What is being introduced is the ability of the city to apply the adopted codes on a regular and consistent frequency to all rental units that qualify for inspection and not just on a complaint basis.   

 

If a landlord cannot get a tenant to agree for an inspection and action is taken in court – who pays for that? How can we ensure that fourth amendment rights are protected?

 

If consent is not provided for the inspection, the city would have the authority to seek an administrative search warrant to complete the inspection.  There is no cost to the tenant or the landlord for this.

 

In regard to the fourth amendment rights, In Jones v. Wildgen, 450 F. Supp. 2d 1265, 1270-71 (D.Kan. 2006), aff'd 244 Fed. Appx. 859 (10th Cir. 2007), plaintiffs challenged the exact language found in Section 6-1313, "Right of Entry," on constitutional grounds. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the United States District Court for the District of Kansas holding that the language of Section 6-1313 was legal and that it comports with the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

 

For apartment complexes that are inspected by insurance companies or professional companies, how do those inspections fit in with this process?

 

The city inspection focuses on city codes related to property maintenance.  Any other inspection performed by a private entity would not replace the required inspection by the city as a private entity does not inspect under the same set of standards.

 

If a property is certified as safe by the City, and something happens that results in a loss of life, who is liable for it?

 

The city is inspecting the property for minimal standards at a specific point in time.  It makes no claim to the future safety of the property.  The city completes many types of inspections and enjoys certain immunities for liability under the Kansas Tort Claims Act.  The rental program falls under the purview of this Act.

 

Why was this program repealed in Manhattan? Why haven’t they reintroduced it? Why did it not succeed? What other communities in the country have introduced rental registration programs like we are trying to do? How have the results been?

 

According to a phone interview conducted October 21, 2013 by staff with an official in the Manhattan Code Department, the Manhattan program was established September 15, 2009 and was repealed July 19, 2011 after turnover on the City Commission.  Staff secured an update memo on their program while it was still being implemented that provides insight into the number of violations found during the first quarter of inspections as part of the program. 

 

The official refuted a claim made at the September 10th Commission meeting that the repealing was the product of tenant outcry.  The official stated it was instead driven by landlords and a majority of the new commissioners that placed a different value on the program than the commission that created it.  The official stated that the K-State student senate endorsed the rental registration program through a resolution of support.   

 

There are many rental inspection licensing and inspection ordinances throughout the country in college towns much like Lawrence where a large percentage of the housing stock serves young and transient tenants.  Please see the City Auditor’s report and response memo to Commissioners’ questions for more information on this topic.

 

With the impending backlash from prior rental registration ten years ago…how have the facts overruled the fears that people had? Do we have good data to support this?

 

The current program has produced over 8,000 violations with no appeals filed on those violations.  Staff has not identified or quantified fears from that time period to refute them with data.

 

How do we ensure equality amongst people that own homes verses rent them out?  How do we prevent citizens being placed into classification categories based upon how they live?

 

The rental licensing and inspection program is intended to ensure that minimum housing standards are in place for the rental industry by completing inspections on a regular basis. The same codes apply to owner-occupied houses and staff regularly enforces the codes as residences are constructed and as complaints are received.  The program does not place citizens into categories based upon how they live, but seeks to ensure that where they live, if renting, is safe and livable for them and their neighbors.

 

What kinds of education will be done with this program?

 

There will be public outreach through multiple media outlets which will include newspaper, television, city website, radio, KU and other avenues managed by the city’s communications manager.  Staff will conduct training sessions for landlords to help them meet program expectations and achieve the incentive program.

 

Additionally, staff has discussed creating web-based, or even paper-based, packets of information to provide tenants as part of the program.  Such a packet could include information on energy conservation, rental insurance, landlord/tenant rights, registering to vote and/or a host of other issues the city may want to convey to tenants.

 

We need to offer courtesy inspections if this is going to be a reason why someone does/doesn’t purchase a property.

 

While staff will have the ability to provide a limited number of courtesy inspections, staff is not able to offer courtesy inspections on a frequent basis and have not proposed staffing resources at a level that will afford this service.  While a buyer can learn of past performance by reviewing a property’s city-based inspection history, buyers should be aware of the conditions of the property before purchasing and should decide whether they buy a property based on private home inspections, in staff’s opinion.

 

I have concerns regarding occupancy limitations, and that homes that have 5 bedrooms in the Oread Neighborhood Association have a limitation that only 4 unrelated people can live there, when 5 people can live there safely.

 

The code sets occupancy limits for different types of housing uses and zoning districts.  Housing uses in RS districts and Detached Dwellings in Planned Development districts are permitted up to 3 unrelated occupants.  Housing uses in RM districts and housing types other than Detached Dwellings in Planned Development districts are permitted up to 4 unrelated occupants.  The Congregate Living use, which is one of only a few housing uses to permit occupancy greater than 4 unrelated, is permitted in most areas of the Oread Neighborhood with site planning and when zoning (including parking), building and fire codes are met.  Occupancy is a discussion not only of safety and capability of the size of the structure to accommodate a greater number of tenants, but also of parking, neighborhood nuisance impacts (parties, noise, activity), etc. that can affect a neighborhood.  Staff agrees that more than 4 unrelated occupants can occupy a structure safely when minimal life-safety codes are maintained, but the other impacts of allowing such should be considered as well.

 

How do we ensure that this process is not a rouse for enforcement of occupancy limitations and truly about safety? (I’ve heard this from many, many property owners).

 

The program seeks to address safety, nuisance, and neighborhood blight issues.  The City Commission has, in the very recent past, placed a strong emphasis on enforcing occupancy regulations throughout the city and was pursuing the rental program expansion as a way to further address this violation type.  As proposed, occupancy would be a violation of the ordinance and enforced as such.

 

How do we address the fact that if this is about safety, it will take us five years to inspect each unit? How can we make this more of a priority?

 

The time required to inspect correlates to the amount of staffing resources the Commission provides to the program.  The direction to date is to maintain a small scope of services, but address the need to inspect all properties within a reasonable time.  

 

Will this program need additional sales tax/property tax revenue to make it self-sustaining?

 

It is not anticipated that the program will need additional revenue assistance in addition to the annual licensing and inspection fee revenues.  As previously mentioned, there are many assumed variables at this time that will have to be monitored on an annual basis to determine the program costs vs. revenue generated.  

 

Can we do some trial runs before this program launches to see what we learn and what we need to change?

 

Staff believes our trial run has been the implementation of the current program in RS districts for 12 years.   We are confident that the expansion is based on a solid foundation of inspection history.  Staff recognizes that this is a major undertaking and will need to be flexible as issues arise.

 

Will additional staffing adequately cover the need to inspect properties, deal with complaints and enforce existing code? How can we ensure that these employees are not overworked?

 

We believe with the current ordinance proposed, an adequate number of additional staff has been requested to appropriately administer the expansion.  Workload will be monitored closely to make sure the program is not overloaded.

 

How can we make the registration process easy? Can we make it an online process?

 

The current initial registration process involves completing a one page document that can be filled out in a short period of time.  Renewing a license can be accomplished online and the city is working to provide more online services for this program.

 

Action Requested

Hold study session and direct staff as appropriate.